Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.

I’m on record as wanting fewer debates, at least in the primary season, but I’ll endorse this idea. It’s not that I expect it to provide me any useful information (I’m voting party-line Democratic this year, and every year until the Republican party stops being led by crooks and lunatics), or change many minds in the general electorate, but I’m in favor of anything that might lead toward a greater public respect for science and scientific issues.

And besides, wouldn’t it be fun to see a debate in which the Republican candidate had to ritually deny modern biology on national television?

Comments

Well, maybe. I think the result, should such an unlikely event take place, is the transformation of science and science policy into sound bites. And the only people who would notice would be scientists. Is that a good thing?

Aside from a few obvious hot-button issues (global warming, stem cell research, maybe possibly evolution as a way to weed out absolute wackos) where would the questions come from? I think the main thing we would learn from such a debate is that republicans are anti-science and democrats don’t know much about science. That is, unless the questions were given long enough beforehand that the candidates’ staffs could research them and allow the candidates to come up with reasonable positions. That’s the way debates should happen anyway. Ambush journalism doesn’t teach us much about any useful quality of a presidential candidate. Why should quickness on one’s feet have anything to do with how a president would run the country? Don’t we want our presidents to really research things and think about them?

Mark,
I am saddened by your quickness to put this effort down, and furthermore by your lumping of all Republicans as anti-science and all Democrats as know-nothings. The Republicans boast some excellent defenders of science, including Vern Ehlers (PhD in nuclear physics, teaching/research at Berkeley & Calvin College, volunteer science advisor to Congressman Gerry Ford) and Sherry Boehlert (now retired). On the Dems side, Jerry McNerny has a doctorate in math, putting him into the ranks of the sci/tech/engin/math defenders. Several members of Congress on both sides have made an effort to become more educated about many pressing science issues. We must realize that there are many issues out there, and we can’t expect every Congressperson to be an expert on every one – but science deserves just as big a shot as health care, military, and other concerns.

Emily, I was talking about candidates for president. I am sure there are many from all parties who are good scientists or who have smatterings of knowledge, but presidential candidates are not scientists. It is a little much to expect them to have anything more than a passing acquaintance with science, or to have much more than a general policy about science (like, for example, don’t let ideologues control federal science policy). It would be good to know that, but as to a debate, I don’t think it serves any real purpose. How much detail do you get in any debate (debate is, of course, the wrong term for what we actually get)? Even on strictly policy issues, like immigration or health care, you get sound bites at best. Forget getting anything substantive on science.

Also, read what I said about giving them a look at the questions beforehand and a chance to think and come up with a position that reflects their true views.

“Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.”

That’s spectacularly amusing. How many of the current Democrat and Republican Presidential candidates can balance their own checkbooks? It is a Grand Guignol of overwhelming ignorance mercyhumped by overweening arrogance.

Books

You've read the blog, now try the books:

Eureka: Discovering Your Inner Scientist will be published in December 2014 by Basic Books. "This fun, diverse, and accessible look at how science works will convert even the biggest science phobe." --Publishers Weekly (starred review) "In writing that is welcoming but not overly bouncy, persuasive in a careful way but also enticing, Orzel reveals the “process of looking at the world, figuring out how things work, testing that knowledge, and sharing it with others.”...With an easy hand, Orzel ties together card games with communicating in the laboratory; playing sports and learning how to test and refine; the details of some hard science—Rutherford’s gold foil, Cavendish’s lamps and magnets—and entertaining stories that disclose the process that leads from observation to colorful narrative." --Kirkus ReviewsGoogle+

How to Teach Relativity to Your Dog is published by Basic Books. "“Unlike quantum physics, which remains bizarre even to experts, much of relativity makes sense. Thus, Einstein’s special relativity merely states that the laws of physics and the speed of light are identical for all observers in smooth motion. This sounds trivial but leads to weird if delightfully comprehensible phenomena, provided someone like Orzel delivers a clear explanation of why.” --Kirkus Reviews "Bravo to both man and dog." The New York Times.

How to Teach Physics to Your Dog is published by Scribner. "It's hard to imagine a better way for the mathematically and scientifically challenged, in particular, to grasp basic quantum physics." -- Booklist "Chad Orzel's How to Teach Physics to Your Dog is an absolutely delightful book on many axes: first, its subject matter, quantum physics, is arguably the most mind-bending scientific subject we have; second, the device of the book -- a quantum physicist, Orzel, explains quantum physics to Emmy, his cheeky German shepherd -- is a hoot, and has the singular advantage of making the mind-bending a little less traumatic when the going gets tough (quantum physics has a certain irreducible complexity that precludes an easy understanding of its implications); finally, third, it is extremely well-written, combining a scientist's rigor and accuracy with a natural raconteur's storytelling skill." -- BoingBoing